WEAK POINTS -THAT I'VE FOUND- ON FIGUERA’S ORIGINAL METHOD

[Art Z.]

Hello Mr. UFO,

Reading your detailed analysis of the field movement only one strategy comes to my mind, which is the following. Instead of using a steel core we can use a nonmagnetic hallow tube and all coils are installed as usual. Then we can use a solid steel cylindrical core length of the group 1-8 exciting coils having a center hole to keep it in the center with a nonmagnetic rod which will be fastened at the left and right ends. When we start the sequencing process the core will move with the field maintaining the center within each excited group. Basically, I see an electromagnet moving back and forth without varying its strength. However, then a question rises. When the core approaches to the end secondaries, what's going to happen there? If we use a solid core on end secondaries, will it solve any issues there? when the main core approaches to end core will it show a field spike as there will be a gap?
I also understand that moving the core at 60Hz will create huge vibration, which might be another issue. Any thoughts? 

Thanks!

[Ufopolitics]

Reply to message #27

Hello, dear Ufopolitics,

Hello dear friend,

Thank you for this detailed clarification.
I can see we are getting much closer to a common ground, which is very encouraging.

I also appreciate the effort you put into explaining your view of the magnetic field as a structured entity with symmetry, polarity, and internal organization.
I agree with you that:

• the field is not just a simple scalar quantity
• its spatial structure and geometry matter
• and that "lines of force" are a meaningful way to visualize its behavior

So on that level, we are fully aligned.

Great!

On your clarification about Bloch walls.
I understand your point that the Bloch wall is not "created" by the material, but rather becomes observable when the field organizes within a ferromagnetic host.
From a classical standpoint, I would phrase it slightly differently:

• the field exists independently
• but the domain structure (and Bloch walls) are how the material responds to that field

So what we observe (Bloch walls, domains) is a material manifestation of field interaction, not necessarily the field itself in free space.
But importantly, this does not contradict your observations.
It is more a difference in interpretation of what is fundamental vs what is observable.

Unfortunately, the "Classical Interpretation" is never going to admit that the Bloch Wall is part of the Magnetic Field.
The same way on "magnetized Domains within the Molecular Structure of Magnetized Material (HOST)

However, and according to my latest post (before this one, Post# 29) I clearly define that the Bloch Wal is actually the Origination Plane for the Magnetic Field to start being generated.

Therefore, it can never be part of the Hosted Material, but an ESSENTIAL Part of the Magnetic Field.

And actually, the name given by its Discoverer, Felix Bloch, does not serve as the FUNCTION DESCRIPTION of this Plane dividing exactly at the CENTER of every Magnetic Field Opposed Poles (N & S).

This "Bloch Wall" is actually the Counterspatial Field or the Dielectric Plane, which serves as a 'GATE' between the Aether Existance Field and our Physical Spatial Environment.

From this Counterspatial Field or Dielectriec Plane is where the Two Polarizations Emanate and Return through Centrifugal and Centripetal Force Curvilinear and Spatial Forces.

And I am really sorry, but unfortunately "Your Classical Electromagnetism Standpoint" is NEVER going to admit ANY of all the above facts.

Therefore, I will never agree with their Old, Primitive and Obsolete Electromagnetism Concepts and Standpoints.

And that is simply the reason why, we have not being able to design and build an Overunity Machine!!

On your concept of "virtual" vs "physical" fields
This is a very interesting point, and I think it is where our interpretations diverge the most.
You wrote that in Method 1:
one field must be "virtual" for both to coexist in the same space
From my perspective, I would not introduce a distinction between "virtual" and "physical" fields.
Instead, I would describe it as:
multiple field contributions superimposing in the same region.

In classical electromagnetism:

• fields from different sources coexist naturally
• they add vectorially
• and the material responds to the total field

Again, if you insist in citing "Classical Electromagnetism" to justify your points of view against mine, then we will never be able to reach an agreement.

And here I will just cite what you wrote above -according to Classic EM- which will contradict itself further on (I will demonstrate it):

Classic EM states that in a Magnetic Field there is ONLY ONE LINEAR FLOW DIRECTION, (ONE VECTOR OF FORCE) Known as B.
As their Vector "B" Only travels "from SOUTH to NORTH"

And am sorry but that is simply TRASH INFO, NOT GOOD & Plain and simple B.S (Bull s***)
As it has CONFUSED every single student of EM for Centuries!!

Ok, so you wrote that Two Fields can "Add Vectorially"

So, according to "Classic EM" if each Field has only One(1) Vector "B" from S to N, then when Faraday did that Experiment I cited before of introducing a charged Electromagnet into another Hollow Coil, connected to a Galvanometer...it should have added exactly ZERO EMF... However, that was not the case, as it did showed a Positive gain on EMF.
Because, according to Lenz, and it is very true, the Nature of the Induced Field would ALWAYS BE OPPOSED to the one which originated it (Inducing Field)

As in plain Math World (Not Classic EM) two Opposed vectors of the same magnitude will CANCEL to ZERO.
Or, in the event that one has more magnitude than the other, but still OPPOSED, the result STILL would be a "Subtraction" and NOT and "Addition".
For vectors to be added together, they MUST OBEY MATHEMATICAL VECTOR'S RULES (which have nothing to do with "Classic EM")

• For Vectors to be added, they BOTH need to have SAME DIRECTION of Force.
• When Vectors have OPPOSED DIRECTIONS they will SUBTRACT.

Now, you also wrote above: multiple field contributions superimposing in the same region

That statement is vague, and confusing.

Yes, I could have multiple fields aiming towards (contributing) to the 'same region' or 'common region' by superimposing them all.

***********************************

'Trivia Question':

Let's say that I wind Two Identical Coils (same number of turns, same wire gauge, same length of wire) on the same Steel Core, one on top of another. (like on my Linear Series Setup)

Then I power them with Opposite Electrical polarizations (applying Lenz, in order to obtain Opposite Vectorial Fields)

Then what happens here?

Question: Will we have a Resultant Stronger Magnetic Field (because adding both Coils Fields) than just one coil generate a Single Field?

@kampen ,  Can you answer above  question, please?

(Let's see if your Classic Electromagnetic Standpoint(s) hold true here or not?)

So in Method 1, rather than:

• one field being virtual

I would interpret it as:

• both inducing and induced fields existing simultaneously
• interacting through superposition and material response

On Method 1 vs Method 2 (refined agreement)
I think we now actually agree on something important:

• The law of induction is the same
• The geometry and interaction are different

Where your insight is very valuable is here:
The spatial relationship between fields strongly affects performance
So your distinction:

• Method 1 → co-located interaction (strong, dense coupling)
• Method 2 → separated interaction (weaker, more distributed coupling)

is absolutely meaningful from an engineering perspective.

Great, yes we agree, however if you read my previous response...it would answer if your interpretation. is correct.

On your concern about "flux"
I understand your objection to the term "flux" being too general or even misleading.
And I agree with you in this sense:
The word "flux" alone does not describe:

• geometry
• curvature
• spatial gradients
• or field topology

However, in the mathematical framework, "flux" is simply:

• a way to integrate the field over an area

It does not deny:

• lines of force
• spatial structure
• or field geometry

It just compresses all that information into a measurable quantity.
So I would say:
"Flux" is not the full description of the field
 but it is a useful projection of it for calculating induction

On your key question: how is "flux" propagated?
This is actually where your intuition about structure is important.
From a classical viewpoint:

• the field is continuous and spatially distributed
• it is neither purely linear nor random
• it follows the geometry imposed by sources and materials

So your emphasis on:

• curvature
• spatial patterns
• and interaction

is very relevant — especially for designing machines.

Where I think we are now aligned.
At this point, I believe we agree on:

• The law of induction (Faraday/Maxwell)
• The importance of field geometry
• The difference between Method 1 and Method 2 in performance
• The need to go beyond overly simplified descriptions

Where we still differ slightly
The remaining difference seems to be:

• You describe the field in terms of intrinsic structure (Bloch walls, vortex-like behavior, virtual/physical distinction)
• I describe it in terms of superposition, coupling, and field integrals

But both approaches are trying to describe the same physical reality.

Ok, I understand -as I wrote it before- that "flux" is just useful for Mathematical Equations and Formulas.
But NOT for us to discuss -in depth- how Induction takes place.
Looking to re-design the Generator Concepts into a New Type of Machine.

Final thought
I think the key now is exactly what you said:
"Once we fully understand the process, designing the machine becomes straightforward."
So perhaps the best way forward is:
take one specific configuration (for example, your Linear-Series setup)
 analyze it from both perspectives
 and compare predictions vs actual measurements.
That would allow us to bridge theory and experiment directly.

I truly appreciate this exchange.

It is seldom to reach this level of depth and partial agreement.
Looking forward to continuing.

Sincerely,
 Alex

Yes, agree.

However, it is essential, that -on your end- you open your mind into this new concepts of EM.
That are based on new tools, as new Instruments developed on this century.
Plus all other older seized books about EM Theories, which just by deviating from Classic EM, they were banned.

And I will repeat again what I wrote previously:

Again, if you insist on citing "Classical Electromagnetism" to backup your arguments against mine, then unfortunately, we will never be able to reach an agreement.

So, I encourage you to Open Your Mind, and close that old book about "Classic EM Standpoints" written two centuries ago.

On a separate note: I will be very busy for the next few days, so will not have much time to respond these large exchanges.

As I also want to continue building my Commutator...

Regards

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello Mr. UFO,

Reading your detailed analysis of the field movement only one strategy comes to my mind, which is the following. Instead of using a steel core we can use a nonmagnetic hallow tube and all coils are installed as usual. Then we can use a solid steel cylindrical core length of the group 1-8 exciting coils having a center hole to keep it in the center with a nonmagnetic rod which will be fastened at the left and right ends. When we start the sequencing process the core will move with the field maintaining the center within each excited group. Basically, I see an electromagnet moving back and forth without varying its strength. However, then a question rises. When the core approaches to the end secondaries, what's going to happen there? If we use a solid core on end secondaries, will it solve any issues there? when the main core approaches to end core will it show a field spike as there will be a gap?
I also understand that moving the core at 60Hz will create huge vibration, which might be another issue. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Hello ArtZ.

Great thinking!!

I have used that same 'analogy' when trying to explain how this system works, with a traveling steel piston, the exact size of one group...and I even set a pair of 'rubber dampers' on each end

https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,5.msg1932.html#msg1932

Also read the other depth analysis of inconveniences of this setup on that post.

But, trust me, we will not need any of that...

The Virtual Field will easily travel within the laminated steel core, and without any physical friction or noise.

Wait until am done with my setup...please, be patient 

Ufopolitics

[kampen]

Dear friend Ufopolitics,

Thank you for your detailed reply and for sharing your perspective.

At this stage, it is clear that we do not fully agree on several fundamental aspects, and rather than continuing to debate theory in depth, I think it would be more productive to focus on practical results.

The best way forward, in my opinion, is for you to complete your mechanical commutator system and present clear measurement data.
If your interpretation and approach are correct, then the results should speak for themselves and could potentially lead to new insights or even reshape existing fundamental electromagnetic understanding.

I am genuinely interested in seeing your experimental results.
We will see.

Best regards,
 Alex

[Ufopolitics]

Dear friend Ufopolitics,

Hello dear friend,

Thank you for your detailed reply and for sharing your perspective.

Always my pleasure.

At this stage, it is clear that we do not fully agree on several fundamental aspects, and rather than continuing to debate theory in depth, I think it would be more productive to focus on practical results.

You're totally right and I agree that only a "Machine" working as I expect, would do make a difference.

The best way forward, in my opinion, is for you to complete your mechanical commutator system and present clear measurement data.

Definitively.

And if everything comes out the way I expect (on my personal life), then I will get back on it the next coming weeks.

If your interpretation and approach are correct, then the results should speak for themselves and could potentially lead to new insights or even reshape existing fundamental electromagnetic understanding.

That's the main reason I am going through so much work...to demonstrate exactly what you've written above.
I am very sure this new System will operate much better than my previous Method 2.

I am genuinely interested in seeing your experimental results.
We will see.

Best regards,
 Alex

You would and so everyone here.

In the meantime I will keep finishing my left out points to present on this Topic...

Best regards my dear friend

Ufopolitics